Xceler8x wrote:aussiesmg wrote: The meaning of Vigilante does not apply to this situation, this is an effective legal alternative to using the criminal justice systemEr..wrong. Here's the definition:http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com said: vigilante n. someone who takes the law into his/her own hands by trying and/or punishing another person without any legal authority....These guys didn't have a legal authority. Therefore they are vigilantes.
Er, wrong. Consent is legal authority. If the story is to be believed, the perp had the choice to be reported to the authorities rather than accept the "justice" of the veterans. That consent certainly negates any civil liability for the act to which he consented and arguably any criminal liability. (The only potential crime I can think of is false imprisonment. Consent negates an element of that offense.)
Xceler8x wrote: If the kid has chosen the boxing match, kicked the old fart's butt, and then he had a heart attack...who'd be on the hook then? The old guys who thought it was a good idea or the kid who was forced to choose? Who would be jailed for the old guy's death? The kid had a choice but it wasn't much of one.
Neither. In your hypothetical the old man's consent to the boxing match would have negated liability for the battery. There's actually a case directly on point that everyone reads in their first year of law school. (Slightly distinguishable because the fight in question was sanctioned in accordance with state law, but that shouldn't make a difference on the consent issue.)
Xceler8x wrote: Thorny issue. A bad way to run a Republic. We have laws for a reason. We all agree they are valid and fair, supposedly. It's not just up to 10 drunk guys who who fought a war 40 years ago. Oh crap. Maybe it is..in a larger sense.
There is no running of a republic here. The guy opted not to take his chances with the laws of the state.
